New York City
Washington DC Metro
Northern New Jersey
open house planner
manhattan condo market index
shop for a broker
submit your listings
Benefits of FREE account
Become an Insider
post your listings
The Condo Board is changing the bylaws of their offering plan to specify a minimum lease term. Some have suggested 1 year since it still allows rentals, but makes an attempt at preventing short-term leases and turning the building into a hotel. Others have stated 6 months or 3 months. What's best for the "health" of this new condo construction development with approximately 100 units?
What's best for the developers isn't probably what's best for the owners who have bought units. Allowing short-term rentals means your building will really be like a rental building rather than a mostly owner-occupied building. How carefully will they screen these short-term renters?
Condo "boards" have zero authority in enforcing any kind of rental restrictions.
The building is almost sold out, and the Developer is the minority on the Board. The Board would present a vote to the owners to change the bylaws to include an amendment on the lease terms. If the vote is approved, the Board certainly has the authority to enforce rental term leases.
You really don't understand how CONDO "boards" work, do you?
Matt, thanks for your input, but no need to add anymore to this conversation. There are lawyers guiding this who certainly understand the process.
1 year should be the minimum. There is also a NYC law that controls some of this.
Thanks csn. Regarding 1 year minimum, what would be the rationale?
One reason for 1 year versus shorter would be to minimize move in and move out inconveniences for owners residing in the building
Except it's likely the majority of short term (less than 1 year) rentals are "furnished."
I cant see landlords moving out furniture and putting in storage for a 3 month/6 month rental as a frequent occurance.
occurence.. yikes my spelling
Anything less than one year turns the building into an SRO. Not good for real estate values.
>Condo "boards" have zero authority in enforcing any kind of rental restrictions.
Matt, your life is so nice and pleasant and you are totally in the clouds. Have you ever had a real dispute where you couldn't call on your union rules to save you?
The condo building is under no obligation to allow the use of common areas, and in particular, the elevator. Good luck with your tenants when they've got to take the stairs to get access to your "real property".
Bring bedbug rules and the building's obligations on certifying for window guards for children...
add in that the building requires indemnification from the owner for any risk that the city will come after it for unpaid hospitality / hotel taxes
Back to the question - sure, 3 month rentals are fine. But make sure that the right fees are in place - application fee, expedite application fee (you want that 3 month rental starting next month, right?), move-in fee and elevator use deposit, move-out ..., . If there's enough money for the condo, why not?
Heck, none of what I said above needs to be true at all. Just tell the owners that. We'll have people posting on streeteasy innocently asking this question and getting advice on litigation and damages from inonada despite the fact that inododo has never been involved in litigation. That level of uncertainty will scare your average penny pincher who needs to rent out his place for 3 months.
far closer to being correct than incorrect.
Why, because the petty people only live in co-ops, and a condo board will just sit there saying "but, but, but, please ..."?
Splot, 875gator is correct it is an inconvenience for the residents in the building. The only time I think a term of less than 1 year would be for a renewal since the tenant is already in the apartment. The owner/landlord would also have quite a bit of extra paper work and time if you were renting multiple times during a year period.
If someone wants to get into the business of renting out their condo for short term stays, they should really consider investing in a condo-hotel. The person who rents for three months thinks they are in a hotel anyway.
I'm curious why some of the condo board members are advocating for 3 or 6 month rentals being permitted. Did they purchase their properties as an investment vehicle rather than as a residence? With all the extra paperwork and bother, why else would they want this? It's not like NYC is a summer or winter 3 month vacation spot.
Lob, sometimes people who have a second home and decamp for it (think Hamptons in the summer or Florida in the winter) want to have the ability to do a three-month furnished rental to bring in a smidge of extra income.
DG Neary Realty
Three or four months is also a standard rental period for visiting professors who are in town to teach for a semester and need a furnished place for themselves and sometimes their families (or for profs leaving town to teach somewhere else for a semester).
"Lob, sometimes people who have a second home and decamp for it (think Hamptons in the summer or Florida in the winter) want to have the ability to do a three-month furnished rental to bring in a smidge of extra income."
If you're so strapped that you need to go through the hassle (never mind the risk) of getting renters into your home for three months, you really can't afford the summer place in the Hamptons or Florida.
Matt, the counter to that is that homes like to be lived in. You may be less likely to have heating problems, for instance, if there is someone resident actually using the heat.
Also, if there's a leak from an upstairs neighbor (a not-uncommon occurence in NY) it's nice to have the tenant tell you that day, rather than wait a few weeks when someone "drops in" to check on the empty apartment.